Miracle Of Forgiveness

[awyatt]

There used to be an old saying, "better dead than red," meaning it was better to die than to be a Communist. There is a feeling among many in the military (particularly among Marines) that it is more honorable to die holding your position or saving a compatriot than to retreat. There are people who feel that they would rather die defending family members than live with the shame of not having tried. (Anyone remember Sophie's Choice?)

I view then-Elder Kimball's statement as reflective of those feelings -- that there are things in life that should be valued more than life itself. We all live in a post-sexual revolution society where personal virtue is not valued as highly as it once was, so the feelings reflected in his statement are hard to comprehend. Not long before Elder Kimball was in his prime it was not unusual for men -- particularly in the Southern US -- to engage in acts of violence, including societally sanctioned murder, to defend the honor of women related to them. Dishonor -- particularly sexual dishonor -- was more disagreeable than the shame that dishonor entailed.

Speaking of the sexual revolution, I don't think anyone can understand The Miracle of Forgiveness without understanding the cultural context in which it was written. Just look at the copyright date, understand the writing itself was likely the year before, and you start to understand that the book was, in large part, a reaction to the massive societal changes occurring at the time. Reading the book in context takes work, but it enhances and informs understanding.

Edited June 30, 2013 by awyatt

[CV75]

In another thread, I was talking about "secondary doctrine" books. I was given "The Miracle of Forgiveness" at one time by my bishop. Although I pretty much dived into scripture during that time, I could not discern what is truly official and not about the book. So for those who have read it, what is it inside the book that makes it unofficial. What is said that is not truly accurate. Thanks.

I read it but I can't remember what might be inaccurate. I think it has to be taken as a whole, the the whole idea being to invite and encourage people to humble themselves, repent and receive forgiveness.

[thesometimesaint]

One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation.

Let the discernment begin...

;0)

--Erik

Without our active involvement there is no salvation.

[Calm]

but why not have someone have revelation and promptings and fix the things.

Why do you think this hasn't been done already?

[Bikeemikey]

Why do you think this hasn't been done already?

Because the copy right is likely owned by the family and they probably don't want people fixing all the "mistakes" made by the author.

Permission would be needed from the copyright holder to do something like this.

[thesometimesaint]

Here's a thought. Why doesn't someone re-establish the book and word it properly? Why let it stand as it is? Sure it is Pres. Kimball's work and all, but why not have someone have revelation and promptings and fix the things. I doubt Pres. Kimball would have disapproved. The bottom line is, it is still being sold as is by Deseret Book. People are picking it up and I am quite sure not questioning anything in it like you are, or are having some cognitive dissonance issues with it.

Because President Kimball is alone in his responsibility for the book. Just because some book is carried in DB doesn't make it binding on the Church.

[Calm]

Because the copy right is likely owned by the family and they probably don't want people fixing all the "mistakes" made by the author.

No, I am saying that the equivalent has already been done. I've seen several conference talks dealing effectively with the process.

I see no reason for that book to be rewritten when there is other material out there already.

[thatjimguy]

No, I am saying that the equivalent has already been done. I've seen several conference talks dealing effectively with the process.

I see no reason for that book to be rewritten when there is other material out there already.

Why should someone have to hunt for these corrections and reworkings? Place it in the book so other get the right information the first time. Doesn't that makes sense?

[Tacenda]

No, I am saying that the equivalent has already been done. I've seen several conference talks dealing effectively with the process.

I see no reason for that book to be rewritten when there is other material out there already.

Plus, it needs to stay as written as an example of what shouldn't be put in books, but maybe the bishops in wards should point some things out before handing it out to the youth. I could see the damage it would do in the wrong hands if taking it literally, especially to youth that have slipped up. I'm grateful for the several talks since by various leaders espousing the Lord's forgiveness of these sins and covering them completely.

[oremites]

Why doesn't someone re-establish the book and word it properly? Why let it stand as it is? ... People are picking it up and I am quite sure not questioning anything in it like you are, or are having some cognitive dissonance issues with it.

Because the Lord doesn't want a book that people can read without questioning. The Lord wants a people who can pick up a book, think about what they read and are spiritually mature enough to pick out the good from the bad. Everyone needs to learn the lesson that just because something was written by a GA doesn't make it the gospel truth. It's a lesson that can be painful to learn but many of life's lessons are.

Personally, I think D&C 91 is an excellent guide for much more than the Apocrypha.

[Nevo]

Plus, it needs to stay as written as an example of what shouldn't be put in books, but maybe the bishops in wards should point some things out before handing it out to the youth. I could see the damage it would do in the wrong hands if taking it literally, especially to youth that have slipped up.

My cousin committed suicide at age 15 after confessing a (very common) transgression to his bishop and being given this book to read. It may be that there was no connection between the two things, but I think there probably was. I wish he'd read the end of the book first, because I suspect the first part of the book only added to his already profound feeling of shame and of being cut off from God. So I endorse your view that bishops should be very careful in handing this book out to youth. It is probably useful for kids with hardened consciences but it's unlikely to help, and may well harm, very sensitive individuals.

[thatjimguy]

My cousin committed suicide at age 15 after confessing a (very common) transgression to his bishop and being given this book to read. It may be that there was no connection between the two things, but I think there probably was. I wish he'd read the end of the book first, because I suspect the first part of the book only added to his already profound feeling of shame and of being cut off from God. So I endorse your view that bishops should be very careful in handing this book out to youth. It is probably useful for kids with hardened consciences but it's unlikely to help, and may well harm, very sensitive individuals.

This quote alone amplifies that it should not be on the shelves at all! This is a terrible example of what I have been talking about. No one obviously told this young man where the mistakes were, he got the wrong idea, and was hopelessly lost.

[Sevenbak]

With all this bashing of Pres. Kimball's book, I think it's important to at least consider what parts of it have been implemented into the correlated manuals of the Church. Chapter 4 of the Priesthood and R.S. manual, is all from his book.

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball - The Miracle of Forgiveness

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=2909862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=da135f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

If one has decided to pick and choose which parts to adhere to, that seems like a good place to start. Here's the footnotes from the manual, all referencing his book.

Notes

1. The Miracle of Forgiveness (1969), 28.

2. See The Miracle of Forgiveness, 340–42.

3. The Miracle of Forgiveness, 362, 363.

4. The Miracle of Forgiveness, 366, 367–68.

5. The Miracle of Forgiveness, 19–20.

6. The Miracle of Forgiveness, 32–33.

7. The Miracle of Forgiveness, 133.

8. The Miracle of Forgiveness, 149, 150–51.

9. The Miracle of Forgiveness, 152–53.

10. The Miracle of Forgiveness, 353.

11. The Miracle of Forgiveness, 159.

12. The Miracle of Forgiveness, 163–64.

13. The Miracle of Forgiveness, 171–72.

14. The Miracle of Forgiveness, 176.

15. The Miracle of Forgiveness, 177, 178, 179, 181.

16. The Miracle of Forgiveness, 185.

17. The Miracle of Forgiveness, 187–88.

18. The Miracle of Forgiveness, 191.

19. The Miracle of Forgiveness, 194–95.

20. The Miracle of Forgiveness, 200.

21. The Miracle of Forgiveness, 201–2, 203, 204.

<a name="104" style="margin: 0px; line-height: 1.22em; color: rgb(0, 51, 102); ">

22. The Miracle of Forgiveness, 368.

[strappinglad]

Hyperbole. Half the Baptists should have gone home after a " hell fire and damnation " sermon , and committed suicide. This is a correlation/causation problem.

[TAO]

Yeah, I do wish he had talked a bit more about the blessing of forgiveness. He has to spend a lot of time condemning sin (because there's lots of different types), but I wish he had devoted a bit more of the book to talking about how wonderful restitution is. Still, all is done, and as said, there's a lot of good in it.

[thatjimguy]

With all this bashing of Pres. Kimball's book, I think it's important to at least consider what parts of it have been implemented into the correlated manuals of the Church. Chapter 4 of the Priesthood and R.S. manual, is all from his book.

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball - The Miracle of Forgiveness

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

Now someone tell me this isn't an endorsement by the church.

[ERMD]

Using quotes from a book does not necessarily equate to an endorsement of the entire work.

I have given this book to people and at the same time have said that there are a few things in it with which I do not completely agree. We then discuss those items as progress is made through the book. In all, I think it is excellent.

[thatjimguy]

Using quotes from a book does not necessarily equate to an endorsement of the entire work.

I have given this book to people and at the same time have said that there are a few things in it with which I do not completely agree. We then discuss those items as progress is made through the book. In all, I think it is excellent.

I would think since we talk about inaccuracies of the Bible, that we would be on the ball to make sure all works we endorse (or implied endorsement) would be of importance. And if we do not want to fix it, then there is the thought that the reason is that we do not want it fixed, because church officials actually believe it is correct.

[ERMD]

Or as in most instances, the Church takes no official stand and allows individuals to decide for themselves.

[Lightbearer]

What about this quote from the book?: "Even in a forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle." Page 196.

Okay this is perhaps a very insensitive way of putting it, (I had actually forgot this quote which made me cringe when I read it 30 years ago.) It assumes a lot that perhaps culturally for the time it was written was not fully understood. However if a person were to voluntarily participate in such an act, sin would be involved. However as is better understood today, rape generally is not so much a sexual crime as a violent crime. So I would suggest this quote be edited out and the book could still be very helpful in the repentance process. As for the mastrubation quote, I would not change it, while not all who mastrubate are homosexuals the idea of mutual mastrubation as mentioned in that quote could very well be how some develop homosexual tendences regardless of what the P.C. gay agenda of the 21st century tries to claim. But the book is still a valid source in my opinion in spite of this one quote. Edited June 30, 2013 by Lightbearer

[canard78]

Are you suggesting what might be truth for one reader of Miracle of Forgiveness could be falsity for another?

--Erik

To quote a british dog called Churchill: "Ooooooooooooooooh yes!"

Everything is. That's why there are 1000s of religious expressions. We all have an individualised curriculum between ourselves and God. That's why the gate is so narrow. Custom-built for one person each.

[canard78]

Now someone tell me this isn't an endorsement by the church.

Of the quotes cited, yes I guess so.

I'm glad they left this one out:

"[Masturbation] too often leads to a grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation - practiced with another person of the same sex - and thence into total homosexuality.

The idea that homosexuality is caused by masturbation (through mutual masturbation) is pretty ridiculous. If my school-friends conversations are anything to go on, they should have all been gay.

[Sevenbak]

I don't find it so ridiculous, but part of a symptom of a bigger issue. Do you think there is any connection with the rise in acceptance and participation of ponography to homosexuality? I believe they are connected completely. It's widely available, accepted as normal, as is masturbation, and homosexuality is the same. It's all part and parcel of the same thing.

And remember, Pres. Kimball didn't just say this in his book written in the 60's. He also taught this from the pulpit in General Conference in the 80's. Here's a snip:

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-morality?lang=eng

Self-abuse

Masturbation, a rather common indiscretion, is not approved of the Lord nor of his church, regardless of what may have been said by others whose “norms” are lower. Latter-day Saints are urged to avoid this practice. Anyone fettered by this weakness should abandon the habit before he goes on a mission or receives the holy priesthood or goes in the temple for his blessings.

Sometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality. We would avoid mentioning these unholy terms and these reprehensible practices were it not for the fact that we have a responsibility to the youth of Zion that they be not deceived by those who would call bad good, and black white.

Homosexuality

The unholy transgression of homosexuality is either rapidly growing or tolerance is giving it wider publicity. If one has such desires and tendencies, he overcomes them the same as if he had the urge toward petting or fornication or adultery. The Lord condemns and forbids this practice with a vigor equal to his condemnation of adultery and other such sex acts. And the Church will excommunicate as readily any unrepentant addict.

Again, contrary to the belief and statement of many people, this sin, like fornication, is overcomable and forgivable, but again, only upon a deep and abiding repentance, which means total abandonment and complete transformation of thought and act. The fact that some governments and some churches and numerous corrupted individuals have tried to reduce such behavior from criminal offense to personal privilege does not change the nature nor the seriousness of the practice. Good men, wise men, God-fearing men everywhere still denounce the practice as being unworthy of sons and daughters of God; and Christ’s church denounces it and condemns it so long as men and women have bodies which Can be defiled.

[Sevenbak]

Also, apparently the Church thinks the entire text of Miracle of Forgiveness is worth having on their website. Here's the clickable link.

http://www.lds.org/braille/The%20Miracle%20of%20Forgiveness.txt

[BCSpace]

In another thread, I was talking about "secondary doctrine" books. I was given "The Miracle of Forgiveness" at one time by my bishop. Although I pretty much dived into scripture during that time, I could not discern what is truly official and not about the book. So for those who have read it, what is it inside the book that makes it unofficial. What is said that is not truly accurate. Thanks.

The book itself is not published by the Church and it makes no difference that one might be able to order it from the Church or that a Bishop gives it to you read, it's not a doctrinal work. However, that being said, if anything it teaches is also found in a work published by the Church, then that particular thing is doctrine. I think one would be hard pressed to find something in the Miracle of Forgiveness that is not either quoted directly or otherwise taught elsewhere in actual official doctrinal works.